KEITH ALLAN TRUMBO V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
I
:’
TO BE PUBLISHED
Bupreme thud
1999-SC-0496-KB
UEITH ALLAN TRUMBO
V.
IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Movant, Keith Allan Trumbo, seeks a Restoration to the practice of law pursuant
to SCR 3.370 and SCR 3.350. Movant was admitted to the practice of law in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky in 1995. Movant’s license to practice law was suspended
by Order of the Supreme Court entered March 25, 1999, for failing to comply with
Contirluing Legal Education requirements. Kentuckv Bar Assoclatton v. Trumbo_,
K;I.,
986 S.W.2d 900 (1999). Movant filed his application for Restoration on May 18, 1999,
at which time he was in compliance with CLE requirements. However, the CLE director,
in Movant’s certification letter, stated that certification
is valid through June 30, 1999. Should the reinstatement
process continue past that date, Mr. Trumbo will be required to
complete additional CLE credits as a condition precedent to
reinstatement.
The Board of Governors first considered this Restoration case on June 15, 1999.
And by Order dated July 7, 1999, the matter was referred to the Character and Fitness
Committee pursuant to SCR 3.500(b). The Character and Fitness Committee rendered
its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation on September 23,
1999. The Committee recommended that Movant’s Restoration be denied.
The denial
was based on three grounds:
1. Additional noncompliance with CLE requirements.
2. Failure to reply to a request for additional information.
3. Pending disciplinary charges against applicant at the time of his Application
for Restoration.
A copy of the Recommendation of the Character and Fitness Committee was
sent to the Movant at his 307 Russell Street, Flemingsburg, Kentucky, address on
September 24, 1999. Pursuant to SCR 3.500 (4), this matter came before the Board of
Governors for review. On August 8, 2001, notification of the Board’s review was sent to
Movant at his three last known addresses: 102 Main Cross St., Flemingsburg, Kentucky
41041; 307 Russell Street, Flemingsburg, Kentucky 41041; 500 E. Anderson Lane, Apt.
160F, Austin, Texas 78752-l 203.
On September 26, 2001, the Board of Governors voted 18 to 0 to recommend to
this Court, pursuant to SCR 3.500, that Movant’s application for Restoration be denied,
and that the costs of $182.33, be assessed to the Movant. The Board based its
decisions upon its following findings:
1. By Order entered January 20, 2000, the Supreme Court suspended
Movant for a two year period, in addition to his CLE suspension, for
ethical violations, on four cases, which included acts of deception,
misrepresentation, lack of diligence and competence, and retention of
an unearned fee in violation of SCR 3.130-I .I, 1.3, 8.3(c), and 1.5
(a). Kentucky Bar Association v. Trumbo, Ky., 17 S.W.3d 856 (2000).
2. By Order entered April 20, 2000, the Supreme Court suspended
Movant from the practice of law for 181 days on two separate cases
involving ethical violations. Kentuckv Bar Association v. Trumbo, Ky.,
14 S.W.3d 921 (2000). This was a default case.
-2-
-. ,
3. By order entered September 28,2000, the Supreme Court suspended
Movant from the practice of law for practicing while suspended and
failure to respond to a lawful request for information for a period of 90
days consecutive to all other pending suspensions. Kentucky Bar
Association v. Trumbo, Ky., 26 S.W.3d 792 (2000).
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that:
1. Movant’s Application for Restoration be denied.
2. Movant is directed to pay all costs associated with this proceeding, said
sum being $182.33.
All concur.
ENTERED: November 21, 2001.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
